A.S.(MD) No. 33 of 2010. Case: Thangavel and Ors. Vs The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Electricity Board and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberA.S.(MD) No. 33 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mahalakshmi for L. Magesh, Advs. and For Respondents: R. Senthilkumar, Standing Counsel
JudgesC.V. Karthikeyan, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateMarch 22, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

  1. This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of O.S. No. 15 of 2007, by the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, by judgment, dated 30.09.2009.

  2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 15 of 2007, seeking compensation for the death of their 12 years old son, by electrocution. In the suit, they had sought a judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ten Thousand only). They had instituted the suit as indigent persons. The suit was dismissed. This appeal has also been presented by them as indigent persons.

  3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 07.11.2003, their son, Pandi alias Pandithurai, aged about 12 years, had died due to electrocution by stepping on a cut live wire, when he was going to have his bath at around 08.00 a.m. along with his friends at Nainankollai Village, in the field of Ramalingam, where, there were banana plantations. While going to have his bath, the said Pandi alias Pandithurai, stepped on a cut live wire, which was a High Tension wire and suffered electrocution and died on the spot itself. He was taken to the Government Hospital and was declared as 'brought dead'. In this connection, a First Information Report was also preferred with the local Police Station. The body of the deceased boy, who died owing to electrocution, was also handed over to the Doctors, who conducted the post-mortem and also gave a report. The plaintiffs sought compensation from the defendants, who are the Superintending Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board, claiming that because of their negligence, the High Tension wire was lying unattended in the field and that a duty and responsibility was cast upon the defendants to take care regarding any live cut wire. The plaintiffs also stated that the deceased was their only son and even though he was aged about 12 years and was studying in 5th Standard, he used to provide an income of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the family. He also looked after his two sisters. Claiming that the death of their son is unfortunate and they had to incur financial loss and also loss of future earnings, future care, love and affection, the suit had been filed as stated above, claiming a sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ten Thousand only) as compensation together with interest and costs.

  4. The third defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 2. In the said written statement, the third defendant denied that the death of the son of the plaintiffs, namely, Pandi alias Pandithurai was due to the negligence of the defendants. The defendants put up a new case stating that one Mariyappa Konar was cutting the plantains from the banana trees and at that time, he accidentally cut the overhead wire, which fell on the neighbouring tree and caused electric sparks. The said Mariyappa Konar, fled away from the scene. The deceased came to the said garden to pluck plantains and got into contact with the cut electric wire and owing to that electric shock, he died. The defendants, therefore, stated that they were not negligent for the live wire being cut or the live wire being left unattended. They stated that the complaint was not given by Mariyappa Konar, regarding the presence of live cut wire in the field. They have further stated that the deceased should have taken more care and he died, while trying to pluck the plantains and the plaintiffs have no cause of action as against the defendants. They have further stated that if at all the plaintiffs seek compensation, they should seek compensation only against the said Mariyappa Konar.

  5. The parties went to trial on the basis of rival pleadings. The learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai framed three issues for consideration, namely,

    1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ten Thousand only) from the defendants?

    2. Whether the electric wire was cut due to the act of Mariyappa Konar?

    3. To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled?

  6. During trial, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses and the defendants examined one witness. The plaintiffs also marked three documents. The first plaintiff who was the father of the deceased Pandi alias Pandithurai was examined as P.W.1. During his evidence, P.W.1. Thangavel, had stated about the death of his son, on 07.11.2003 due to electrocution and about the fact that the police complaint was given and also produced and identified the copy of the First Information Report as Ex. A.1; the Death Certificate of the deceased Pandi @ Pandithurai as Ex. A.2 and the copy of the PostMortem Certificate as Ex. A.3. The plaintiffs also examined Thiru.Rajendran, as P.W.2, who also spoke about the incident and Thiru.Sasikumar, as P.W.3, who stated that he accompanied the deceased Pandi alias Pandithurai, while they were going to have their bath and at that time, due to electrocution, the incident happened, leading to the death of the deceased Pandi alias Pandithurai.

  7. On the side of the defendants, the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board, namely, Thiru.Senthilkumar was examined as D.W.1. He gave his chief examination, on the line of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, denying the liability and also the fact that the defendants were responsible for the death of the deceased, because of their negligence. The defendants did not mark any documents.

  8. On considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, dismissed the suit, primarily holding that the plaintiffs have not established that the deceased died, as a direct result of the negligence of the defendants. The learned Principal District Judge further held that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the said Mariyappa Konar, neither as a defendant, nor did they produce him as a witness. The learned Principal District Judge accepted the case of the defendants that they were not negligent in their duties and therefore, held that the plaintiffs are not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT